- (1.) This revision petition came up for hearing before me in October, 1976, when the same was allowed ex-parte. Later on, the application (C.M. 2474 - C/11/76) filed on behalf of the respondent, ex-parte order passed by me on October 11, 1976, was set aside and the revision petition was ordered to be heard on merits. That is now this revision petition has been placed for hearing. The facts of this case may briefly be stated thus -
(2.) The petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 3rd of September, 1974, for ejectment of the respondent. After registering the application, notice was issued to the respondent for 9th of October, 1974. The respondent was personally served for that date, but he failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller. As the respondent did not put in appearance, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order :- "Respondent served, but he is not present in spite of service of summons. Therefore, ex-parte proceedings to be taken against him. To come up on 2.11.74 for ex-parte evidence." On 2nd of November, 1974, when the case was called out the following order was passed by the learned Rent Controller :- "The notification enforcing the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act to Union Territory, Chandigarh has since been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. As such, this file is ordered to be consigned to the Record Room." On 20th December, 1974, the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (Extention to Condigarh) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Chandigarh Act'), was enforced with the result that on 17th of January, 1975, an application was filed by the petitioner praying that her petition for ejectment be restored. This application of the landlady was allowed on 17th of February 1975, and the ejectment application was fixed for ex-parte evidence for 18th of March, 1975, on which date no evidence could be recorded as the Presiding Officer had been transferred with the result that the case was fixed for appropriate orders on the 17th of April, 1975. As the new Presiding Officer was not invested with the powers to deal with the cases under the Act, the case was sent to the learned District Judge for transferring the case to a Court which had jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The learned District Judge transferred the case to the Court of Shri M.S. Nagra vide his order dated 26th of April, 1975. The file was received by the learned Subordinate Judge (exercising the powers of the Rent Controller) and on 8th of May, 1975, the case was adjourned to 27th of May, 1975, for recording the ex-parte evidence. On 27th May, 1975, an application had been filed by the respondent for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 9th of October, 1974. The counsel appearing for the respondent requested the learned Rent Controller to first decide the application for the setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings. The prayer was allowed and the case was adjourned to 4th June, 1975. The parties were allowed opportunity to lead evidence and ultimately the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 3rd of December, 1975, set aside the ex-parte proceedings. It is in these circumstances that the present revision petition has been filed against the said order of the learned Rent Controller.
(3.) Mr. Majithia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently, contended that no ground for the setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings had been made out and that the learned Rent Controller committed a patent illegality in setting aside the ex-parte order. On the other hand, it was submitted by Mr. Chibber, learned counsel for the respondent, that the order of the learned Rent Controller was perfectly legal and just and no case had been made out by the petitioner for interference in revision. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition.;